[removed]

This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.

Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"

(For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, please read this page.)

Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.

Ooh snap

[removed]

My point was that a realistic definition of immortality is having the capacity to live forever, rather than necessarily living forever.

I understand that humans aren't capable of reverting to an embryo and redeveloping endlessly, in a manner analogous to a jellyfish.

But maybe it's possible that there exists some sequence of nucleotides which would enable some human-like species to naturally regenerate specialized cells/extracellular structures, and avoid or repair life-cycle dysregulating mutations associated with aging, to approach something like immortality in a complex organism.

You should've just rolled with it. "My child, offer the spine of your firstborn to me for unimaginable riches and power"

Redditors do be obnoxious fucks most of the time. Pay it no mind.

Looking at you, Obama.

It also has to make some amount of sense also probably shouldn't call people disabled. Next when you literally contradict yourself the first reply you made should have told you that you're literally wrong.

Lol, it's "shower thoughts". I was supposed to read a study on hand dominance first? This is quite literally the exact right place to post half-baked garbage online. I'm actually surprised that this seems to have eluded you.

"The only time it was an aversion", he says about people who lived in the past and made no record whatsoever of whether it was an aversion or not. Maybe they also had an aversion to know it alls showing up at the pub and correcting everybody's language.

Article says “almost exclusively in children”

Real. 💀

You guys win. I'm retracting my submission to the American medical association, with much sadness

But what about all the other wizards who wear glasses (from Albus Dumbledore and Minerva McGonagall to James Potter and Moaning Myrtle, among many others)?

my feet came of age in the 1970's- long before there was an internet for buying shoes. living in sub-urban chicago, there were a few "king-size" type stores with pricey but butt-ugly shoes to choose from.

i mostly wore chuck taylor all-stars all-thru high school.

I was feeling really down today but this put a big smile on my face.

[removed]

He would need to be able to comprehend what he reads, which doesn't seem to be his strong point though, since it's obvious he doesn't even know the difference between aversion and preference, though he is able to insert the words into a sentence.

Expensive fittings as a size US mens 17. I feel your pain.

The worst is all the online sites that advertise cool looking shoes to me constantly that max out at a size 13 and I'm like, nope, never for me.

So you used specific words and didn't realize they had literal meanings?

>Yeah, well, I didn't think

You certainly didnt.

Yeah, well, I didn't think I'd have to defend it in the completely literal sense, but I wasn't expecting to encounter the Lord of Ambidexterity here, either. It was nice meeting you, though.

(Also, it was you who said I probably wasn't ambidextrous so now who's the hypocrite?)

I’m a phan

[removed]

I tried rental ski boots several several times as a youth. They were so comfortable, I would rather downhill ski on my bare hands. I only wear a mens 9 now, though theyve always been very wide. I have owned roller blades that fit just fine. Ski boots are the devil.

Look up Hand Dominance there have been studies for decades about it. Is it genetic, or is it taught or both? The definition by actual doctors list it as a preference because they choose one over the other. The only time it was an aversion was typically left handedness as it was seen as evil in some religions, even nuns used to force left handed people to use their right hands and would punish then when they didn't. So maybe read before you post garbage online. It'll do wonders for your intellect.